Pages

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

A U.S. District Judge has blocked recently passed legislation in Texas which would have required an ultrasound to be shown to the mother and have them hear the baby's heartbeat prior to performing an abortion. An injunction was filed regarding the bill preventing it from going into effect on September 1, 2011. You can review a copy of the injunction here. Here's an excerpt from LifeNews:

The new law in Texas allowing women considering an abortion a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child beforehand is supposed to go into effect any day now, but that may not happen thanks to an activist judge.

The law is slated to take effect on Thursday, but abortion advocates filed a lawsuit seeking to stop it and the case could take years to sort out in court.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks today issued an injunction in advance of the September 1 date the law is supposed to go into effect.

He ruled in a two-page order that parts of the state’s new sonogram law are unconstitutional and prevented Texas officials from issuing any fines or penalties against abortion practitioners who do not follow the law while the lawsuit continues. He claimed Texas has no right to tell abortion practitioners they should allow women a chance to see an ultrasound of an abortion — even though one is typically done to determine the age of the baby at the time of the abortion. Judge Sparks also claimed the law is supposedly vague and contradictory and makes it so abortion practitioners who think they are following the law could be running afoul of it.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Not familiar with China's one-child policy? This short video, produced by Women's Rights Without Frontiers, provides the key information we should all know. The Chinese government is fighting a war on parents-- especially mothers-- and their babies. We cannot ignore it!

Monday, August 29, 2011

Aimee Christine Bedoy is a devout Catholic. She is also a longtime supporter of Secular Pro-Life, and invited us to speak at Carnegie Mellon University (where she recently graduated). I'm excited to share Aimee's next project: a secular, non-partisan pro-life publication, called the Life Matters Journal. You can contribute an article by emailing lifemattersjournal@gmail.com.

Life Matters Journal is looking for consistent life ethic articles that are non-partisan and non-sectarian. Aimee fully understands the need to welcome all pro-lifers into the movement:

To bring about justice for all, and the respect for all human life that we endeavor to promulgate within our world, we must stand together regardless of creed or political background. Even in my own pro-life group on campus we have had members who are Agnostic, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish; we have had members who are liberal, conservative, libertarian, and independent. However, there is an unsettling trend that I notice in my work with students and young people alike: at conferences, talks, and debates, one religion or political view is nearly always brought to the forefront in such a way that it alienated those within our groups who do not follow the same religious path or political persuasion. We cannot let a pride of religion or political party or lack thereof be the downfall of this movement: while we struggle against each other and alienate the youth of our nation, more die in our nation and around the world. We have a responsibility to our fellow man to stand up for human dignity, regardless of what we believe.

The youth are a more secular generation than that of their parents, and the way we interact with our young people on these issues must acknowledge this fact. We cannot change hearts and minds if we continue to speak to that which they do not relate; while religious arguments may have a place in a sermon or amongst a given ministry group, the campus culture of today is largely secular and we must equip our young people to respond to it. To make a bigger impact on our campuses and around our world for life, we must be willing to have these conversations on the value of human life without the use of religious arguments. To individuals who prescribe to no specific spirituality, or one to which a specific religious argument does not pertain, we must be willing to discuss life matters from a secular perspective.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Two items from RH Reality Check today. First, I'm in a minor comment war over this post about the pro-life view on ectopic pregnancy. Pro-lifers generally don't even think of ectopic pregnancy treatment as being an abortion at all. If an unborn baby is doomed to die, and the mother is at risk if the baby's body is not removed, what moral objection could there possibly be?

Physicians for Life basically agrees with that assessment. However, they point out that some ectopic pregnancies resolve on their own, and so women who are not facing an immediate threat may want to take a "wait and see" approach to possibly avoid surgery. They also point out that it is a very bad idea to just reflexively use methotrexate, without checking to see if there is a twin correctly implanted in the uterus:

One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate.

However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins – one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription.

Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman.

The RH Reality Check article finds Physicians for Life's position to be completely unreasonable. The article was passed around the #prochoice echo chamber on twitter as "proof [that] #prolife is about #misogyny." When of course, the opposite is true: these pro-life physicians are trying to do whatever is best for the patient's particular circumstances. So it goes.

I find it ironic that today we celebrate Women's Equality Day and commemorate the 91st anniversary of the 19th amendment made to the Constitution; the amendment that gave women the right to vote in 1920. It's ironic to me because a hot issue this week is Vice President Biden's statements to Chinese officials commending their One Child Policy that forces women to abort their children, "Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I'm not second-guessing -- of one child per family." The One Child Policy not only forces abortion but discriminates against women born and unborn. It is estimated that there are 37 million more males then females living in China. I encourage you to read the article 160 million and Counting that talks about women who are missing due to sex selective abortions on female babies.

Severe public criticism has justifiably been made of Vice President Biden's support of China's One Child Policy over the last few days. President Obama's administration released a statement stating they "strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and forced sterilization." But as I explained in a recent blog, President Obama's actions speak louder than words and President Obama has made it so the Unites States supports China's One Child Policy(Learn more here).

Getting back to Women's Equality Day, I would like to highlight some of the statements made in President Obama's Presidential Proclamation--Women's Equality Day 2011.

"They let their feet speak when their voices alone were not enough, protesting and marching for their fundamental right to vote in the face of heckling, jail, and abuse. Their efforts led to enormous progress millions upon millions of women have since used the power of the ballot to help shape our country."

"On the 91st anniversary of this landmark in civil rights, we continue to uphold the foundational American principles that we are all equal, and that each of us deserves a chance to pursue our dreams. We honor the heroes who have given of themselves to advance the causes of justice, opportunity, and prosperity."

I hope that our president means what he said in this proclamation, and that he will allow all women -- born and unborn -- to pursue their dreams. I hope that the heckling, jailing, and abuse on those who believe in protecting the innocent women in the womb ends. President Obama, stands firm in the conviction you placed on all of us when you said "I call upon the people of the United States to celebrate the achievements of women and recommit ourselves to the goal of gender equality in this country." (Presidential Proclamation--Women's Equality Day 2011)

Gender equality is not made by:

Restored funding of UNFPA (Unites Nations Family Planning Fund) which is an abortion provider in China that the US stopped funding in 2001 because they were found to have been implementing the One Child Policy; yet President Obama wants to send a proposed $47 million to the UNFPA and already reinstated this funding after becoming president.

The Unites States funds IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) which works with Chinese population control. On Planned Parenthood's website it says "The China Family Planning Association (CFPA) plays a very important role in China's family planning programme. It supports the present family planning policy of the government . . ." We have to defund Planned Parenthood!

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

A study of 1,031 obstetricians / gynecologists by Obstetrics & Gynecology magazine found that 1 in 7 Ob / Gyns perform abortions. This is a decrease from a study they performed in 2008, where they found 22% had performed abortions. People on both sides of the issue have some issue with the statistics, so check out the entire article. Here's an excerpt from the article:

Researchers asked 1,800 ob/gyns aged 65 or younger whether or not they provided abortion services and/or had patients requesting such services. Of the 1,031 responses tallied, 97 percent of physicians said patients had come to them seeking abortions, and just 14 percent -- about one in seven -- said they offered such services.

Female ob/gyns were more likely than males to provide abortions, the survey showed. Younger ob/gyns, those from the Northeast, West and other densely populated urban areas, along with Jewish physicians, were also more likely to provide abortion services.

Ob/gyns who were among the least likely to provide abortion services included doctors located in rural communities in the South and Southwest, as well as Catholics, evangelical Protestants and other highly religious physicians, the survey showed.

Access to abortion remains limited by the willingness of physicians to provide abortion services, particularly in rural communities in the South and Midwest, concluded the study authors, led by Dr. Debra B. Stulberg, an assistant professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Chicago.

Southern doctors accounted for more than one-third of the respondents; just 8 percent reported providing abortions.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) is gearing up for its fall college tour. For those who don't know, GAP is a project of the Center for Bioethical Reform (CBR). GAP volunteers display huge graphic images of various horrific human rights abuses-- including abortion.

GAP is preparing to go to Liberty University this year, and CBR director Fletcher Armstrong calls this "the most important campus visit we've ever done." That's despite Liberty's reputation as a Religious Right training ground. Armstrong explains in a recent fundraising email:

The sad fact is that 18% of all abortions are performed on women who are "born again" or "evangelical" Christians. According to the most recent data, about 15% of evangelical or born again Christian women will have at least one abortion during their childbearing years. Born again and evangelical men are just as involved.

Secular Pro-Life is quick to point out that not all pro-lifers are Christian. (Ironically enough, we've shared that message at Liberty University!) But we need to remember that the opposite is also true: not all Christians are pro-life. And among those who are pro-life, many are apathetic. Still others genuinely care, but are poorly educated about the best arguments against abortion in a religiously pluralistic society. GAP will help Liberty students place the right-to-life cause in its historical context, and teach them to continue the fight for social justice.

Friday, August 19, 2011

The other day I came across an article titled 'Back to School Means Back to Work for Planned Parenthood' by Kristen Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America. Planned Parenthood has already been in high schools and colleges targeting young people with their idea of 'reproductive health care' (sex education, contraception, and abortion), but now they are amping up their sex-ed campaign more than ever. Planned Parenthood strategically has clinics next door to or within minutes of many high schools and colleges, and believe me when I say -- they’re pushing their services on these students. I encourage you, no matter your age, to read the article below and beware! Help educate your friends, family, children, and coworkers because Planned Parenthood does not care for the well being of these students. Planned Parenthood cares about manipulating open minded young people into bringing revenue in for them with abortion and contraceptive service.

"I am sending you this critical pro-life update because you need to know about Planned Parenthood’s deadly agenda for students in the fall. The nation’s premier anti-life organization is planning an unprecedented campaign to promote abortions in high schools and colleges across the nation. Unless we act right now, we will witness a tragic outbreak of abortions on American campuses. . ." Continue reading this article by Kristan Hawkins.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Normally, I write in the voice of Secular Pro-Life, speaking on behalf of all our members. But today, I write as Kelsey Hazzard: president of Secular Pro-Life, and graduate of the University of Miami.

I love UM. I have wonderful memories of my time there. (As it happens, UM is where I first got involved in the pro-life movement.) So naturally, I'm following the story of UM's football scandal. The short version is that Nevin Shapiro, a former UM booster who is currently in prison for a Ponzi scheme, admits that he gave all kinds of money and benefits to players, in violation of NCAA rules. The NCAA is investigating; apparently there's considerable evidence to back up Shapiro's claims, although the details aren't fully available yet.

Truth is, I never cared much about Miami football. The team wasn't all that good when I was there; I was more interested in college baseball. But the media coverage of the scandal bothers me. Here's an excerpt from yesterday's Associated Press article:

Shapiro said he gave money, cars, yacht trips, jewelry, televisions and other gifts to a list of players including Vince Wilfork, Jon Beason, Antrel Rolle, Devin Hester, Willis McGahee and the late Sean Taylor. Shapiro also claimed he paid for nightclub outings, sex parties, restaurant meals and in one case, an abortion for a woman impregnated by a player. One former Miami player, running back Tyrone Moss, told Yahoo! Sports he accepted $1,000 from Shapiro around the time he was entering college.

The article goes on for another twenty-plus paragraphs about the scandal. The abortion is never mentioned again.

Yes, violating NCAA rules is bad. Yes, this is probably going to cause serious problems for UM's football program. That's unfortunate, but in the grand scheme of things, it really does not matter. If you're going to hate on Shapiro, do it because he enabled the killing of a helpless unborn baby. That is a far greater crime than any recruiting shenanigans.

Baby Hurricane deserved more than a passing mention. He or she deserved a chance to live, grow, play childhood sports, and try to get into college.

History will judge us. And when it does, abortion will be our generation's greatest scandal.

Perry will join House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as co-chairs of the the public-interest law and policy group's 40th anniversary gala in Washington, D.C. in November. Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann will also serve as an honorary host of the event, along with 78 other members of Congress. AUL was formed in 1971--a year before the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in every state.

As governor of Texas, Perry has signed several bills into law related to abortion, earning him praise from conservatives and scorn from pro-abortion rights groups.

In May, Perry signed a Texas bill into law requiring that all women seeking abortions receive a sonogram before the procedure. The law mandates that doctors offer to show the images to the woman, describe the size of the fetus' limbs and organs, and allow her to hear and feel the heartbeat. Women who live within 100 miles of an abortion provider must then wait 24 hours after the sonogram to undergo the procedure. The law exempted women seeking abortions for rape or incest...Largely due to Perry's efforts since he moved into the governor's mansion in 2000, AUL rated Texas in the top five states in its latest annual state-by-state report card.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Slate has two life-related stories today. The first is originally from the Financial Times: "Lost and Found," the story of a baby girl with a heart defect who was found in a Shanghai alley. It's actually a very sweet story, and I highly recommend reading the whole thing. But the author, who is an adoptive father, does not sugar-coat-- he is very honest about how conditions have and have not improved for babies in China:

The tale of an abandoned Chinese infant is not always so warm and fuzzy. For centuries, rural Chinese women were forced—by circumstance, and often by their mothers-in-law—to strangle or drown or simply throw away girl babies at the moment of their birth. Xinran, the Chinese radio show host turned author, recounts in her new book, Message from an Unknown Chinese Mother, an incident from Shandong province in 1989, when she was present at the birth of a granddaughter to the village headman.

"Suddenly, I thought I heard a slight movement in the slops pail behind me," she writes. "To my absolute horror, I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail… Then the tiny foot twitched! It wasn't possible. The midwife must have dropped that tiny baby alive into the slop pail!" Xinran accosts the grandmother, who explains calmly that "a girl baby isn't a child".

It is that kind of story—which, however, gruesome, is far from apocryphal—that makes it, paradoxically, relatively easy to explain to our Chinese daughters why their parents abandoned them. When traditional preference for sons meets the one-child policy, the inevitable outcome is abandonment (or sex-selective abortion).

"It isn't a child" sure is a popular rationalization, isn't it? Which brings us to our second article, by Slate author William Saletan, on the subject of pro-choice discomfort with "selective reduction"-- a euphemism for aborting one twin and allowing the other to live (or aborting two triplets, or what have you). He wrote an incredibly insightful couple of paragraphs on the central importance of semantics in the abortion debate:

[T]he main problem with reduction is that it breaches a wall at the center of pro-choice psychology. It exposes the equality between the offspring we raise and the offspring we abort.

Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you'll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help "women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down's Syndrome." A TV character wonders whether she's "capable of carrying a child to term." Nuclear radiation in Japan "may put unborn children at risk."

This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are "activated eggs." A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother," but no such penalty applies to "an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman … has been obtained."

Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can't pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You're killing the same creature to which you're dedicating your life.

I couldn't help but comment:

Mr. Saletan, did you become pro-life and I didn't notice? If you did, congratulations. If not, I'd love a follow-up article on how you're managing to maintain your convictions now that the "wall" of dehumanizing language has been breached.

Friday, August 12, 2011

It has recently come to my attention that a new bill (AB123) has been signed into state law by Governor Jerry Brown last week. This Bill AB123 by Democratic Assemblyman Tony Mendoza is to protect preschool, elementary, and middle school students from harassment while entering and leaving school grounds. The consequences of these actions is a misdemeanor. This law may sound reasonable and once again another great thing our government has done to protect it’s children, but our rights are being violated.

This bill was written after a 2003 pro-life picket on the public sidewalk outside of Dodson Middle School in Rancho Palos Verdes. This was a peaceful pro-life picket where pro-life activists reached out to middle school students about abortion, and students were faced with the gruesome reality of abortion in the graphic images that were displayed. According to the LA Times article some students cried and others became angry after seeing these graphic images (Jerry Brown signs school safety law prompted by abortion protest). Do you blame these pre-teens for crying or being angry? When I look at the image below, I feel the same exact way.

Before I even get into the violation of First Amendment Rights . . . Here is my question to you: Is it wrong for these pre-teens to see images of children who have been aborted? The question isn’t whether or not you think it is or is not wrong. It also isn’t about how it makes you feel. I believe that these kids need to see the truth, and they shouldn’t be protected from knowing it.

These kids are aware of what abortion is along with many other horrible things that take place in this world. Believe it or not, these pre-teens are having abortions already. Some abortion clinics are intentionally located next to middle schools; so that they can provide these kids with sex education, birth control, and offer abortions. If you think these kids aren’t aware of abortion at this age, you would be heart broken to know how impacted these kids are by it. Why then are we protecting them from seeing the truth and the horrible reality if they’re already living it?

I am not going to address that this new law prevents the exposure of graphic abortion images outside of preschools and elementary schools children; but truly, I’ve never heard of pro-life activists ever standing outside either types of schools because they really believe that educating this age with aborted baby signs isn’t age appropriate. So I find it to be a non-issue, other than the fact that it violates First Amendment rights.

Lastly, as citizens of the United States of America our rights are being violated here. Whether you’re for or against activists educating about abortion on the streets, you should be against any violation of our right to free speech in the public arena. It is our right to discuss whatever, to whomever, whenever we like, and it’s a slippery slope when we’re not allowed to do so.

Do you find this new law to be constitutional?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." - - - First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Luis Zaffirini, who works for the National Right to Life Committee, has an excellent article on LifeNews.com today. The topic is a pro-abortion research study, which seeks to identify (and then, somehow, eliminate) the causes of stigma on abortion.

The researchers noted five reasons abortion is stigmatized including the fact that scientific advances have “challenged previous constructions of boundaries between fetus and infant.” What most disturbs me about this “research” is that its aim is specifically to counter growing scientific evidence of the humanity of the unborn child.

It is indeed disturbing, but not surprising. The science of prenatal development provides one of the strongest secular arguments against abortion. Abortion supporters would have to be stupid not to recognize the threat that science poses to their ideology.

The stigma of abortion will never go away, no matter how many studies are done. It persists among all religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. The reason is inherent in what abortion is and always will be: the destruction of a human being.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

I feel like I'm lazing it in tonight, but here are some quick news items from the US and abroad.

Domestic News: With the GOP primary readily approaching, Iowans and some GOP hopefuls help explain what abortion has to do with the economy. Check out the videos. For the first time in Maryland history, abortion clinics will be regulated. According to the Gazette, "...if the new regulations are enacted, the state would know the location of abortion clinics, inspect them and have the authority to investigate complaints against them."

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Gallup recently released a poll showing that most Americans who label themselves "pro-choice" are actually supportive of common-sense limitations on abortion, such bans on third-trimester abortions (79%) and partial-birth abortions (63%). They also live up to the true meaning of "choice" by joining pro-life advocates in supporting informed consent (86%) and a 24-hour waiting period (60%).

What struck me most about this is how out-of-touch pro-choice organizations are with their constituents. For instance, the Center for Reproductive Rights has filed numerous lawsuits against informed consent laws, and EMILY's List requires its candidates to support partial-birth abortion.

These policies are not what the average "pro-choice" person supports; these organizations are really pro-abortion. So it comes as no surprise that they have a hard time finding grassroots activists to push their mission. The solution? Pay them!

A couple of weeks ago, a poster in the vestibule of a Thai restaurant in Chicago caught my eye. I’d just eaten there with my wife April before heading around the corner for a concert. In large type, the poster was advertising “Campaign Jobs,” with the tagline, “Work for the pro-choice movement.”

. . .

It’s unfortunate the abortion lobby is so well funded they can hire activists (or try to), but it’s encouraging to realize they have to. They just don’t have the kind of deep, grassroots commitment that characterizes the pro-life movement.

You'll never see that kind of advertising tactic in the pro-life movement. We don't have to pay anyone to go to the March for Life, offer help to women outside of abortion facilities, or run student clubs. Even those who have full-time jobs in the pro-life movement are not paid very well. (For the record, SPL has no paid staff.) Pro-lifers are motivated by the knowledge that we can save lives. That's a greater reward than any blood-money-financed paycheck.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Hugh Carey, who was the governor of New York from 1975 to 1982, has died of natural causes at the age of 92. Most media outlets are focusing on his noteworthy service to the state during its 1975 financial crisis. Unfortunately, Carey will not be remembered for his service to unborn children.

While Carey professed to "personally oppose" abortion, his actions speak louder than his words. New York was already a very pro-abortion state by the time Carey took office; in fact, abortionists had legally done business there even before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. But Carey certainly didn't help matters, as he fought for taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid.

Even today, New York continues to be a very dangerous place for the unborn. In New York City, more than four out of every ten pregnancies ends in abortion.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Twenty years ago in the summer of 1991 a pro-life event was scheduled to target late term abortionist Dr. George Tiller, who during his career performed over 60,000 abortions mostly on 7-8 month old unborn children in the womb. 50,000 pro-life advocates from all over the United States answered the call to stand for life through peaceful pro-life demonstrations and prayer. The abortion clinic closed for 12 days during the six week long event that was later named Summer of Mercy. People courageously stood to protect the voiceless in the womb (2,600 arrests were made during the 6 weeks) and by doing so countless lives were saved, many of which we will never know about.

This summer on the 20th anniversary of the first Summer of Mercy, pro-life advocates from across the Unites States have once again answered the call, but this time late term abortionist Dr. Leroy Carhart’s clinic in Maryland is the target. The late term abortion clinic has been surrounded with constant prayer for a nine day long event called Summer of Mercy 2.0.

Summer of Mercy 2.0 began July 30th and is scheduled to run through August 7th. But on August 1, four days ago, Dr. Carhart’s clinic doors didn’t open. Due to investigation of his abortion clinic and courageous pro-lifers standing on the sidewalk outside of his clinic, Dr. Carhart closed his abortion clinic for a week! This means: abortion appointments were cancelled and walk-ins aren’t accepted because the doors are closed. Lives have been spared and women do not reap the loss of their child’s life this week in that abortion clinic. I would say that Summer of Mercy 2.0 has already been affective, and I pray that it continues to be so.

In light of Dr. Carhart closing his abortion clinic for the week, Summer of Mercy 2.0 has been extended through the week of August 8th when the clinic is to reopen. Why? Because people of the United States recognize the worth and dignity of unborn children in the womb and know that women deserve better than the emotional and physical hurt after an abortion. So, united together, they continue to stand.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Earlier this week, I took part in some of the mass protests against Leroy Carhart's new late-term abortion mill in Germantown, Maryland. So far, it's a successful protest; Carhart closed for the entire week and has been getting a lot of negative publicity outing him as a late-term abortionist. Even better than that is the fact that several people in the immediate neighborhood have become pro-life because of the pro-life visibility efforts.

One woman joining me by the side of the road said that driving past the protests had gotten her to further research the issue and reason her way to a pro-life viewpoint. She walked over that morning to join the efforts, saying she hoped her neighbors would see her and ask questions later.

While the noon event was a prayer gathering and there were religious overtones for much of the event, all I had to do was ask one of the organizers "May I hold a sign by the road during the prayer?" and I was immediately accommodated. I didn't feel demeaned or pigeonholed for making that request, and was thanked for coming out and taking part.

But one thing really perturbed me....

One of the pro-abortion-choice counter-protesters looked very familiar, and I thought we had met before at an animal rights protest in Philly. While he stood a few feet from me taking photos of my sign (a large photo of a baby with "LIFE" across the top), I tried to engage him in conversation.

He completely ignored me.

Later, while several of us pro-lifers were passing out free bottles of cold water to the pro-choice activists, we received the same cold shoulder from most, and had a few spiteful barbs tossed at us. I've been to enough protests and outreach events to know what was happening; the caustic glare and rude comments were demonstrative of a sentiment many activists across movements share – the idea that those who disagree with them are either unintelligent, insincere, or just flat out less-than-equal than they themselves. Many pro-lifers unfortunately also ascribe to this bigoted mind-set, but I have noticed it anecdotally in greater numbers amongst those who oppose our efforts to eliminate abortion and establish the right to life.

If you hold this way of thinking, then get rid of it. Aside from the fact that we are ALL equal and worthy of compassion and dignity, you will have a hard time changing someone's mind if you view them with contempt. And while you're at it, drop the “I refuse to talk to you because you're my enemy” mentality; your goal with any issue should be to change your opponent's mind, not silence their voice.

The only time I've ever told a pro-life activist to not speak to someone at a demo was in Milwaukee several years ago, where I told a group of children coming out for their first event at a clinic not to speak to the rather nasty cops that had been harassing us that morning.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Happy August. I've just got two quick bullet points out of Kansas as my news items for today. Kansas has become a bevy of pro-life action this year. Here's two recent action items:

The Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R) has announced that Kansas will appeal a federal judge ruling preventing the state of defunding Planned Parenthood. A US District Judge issued an injunction earlier this year. Secretary for Kansas Department of Health and Environment Dr. Robert Moser said of the appeal, “Title X was not intended to be an entitlement program for Planned Parenthood. Other providers are already offering a fuller spectrum of health care for Kansas patients. This highly unusual ruling implies a private organization has a right to taxpayer subsidy. The people of Kansas disagree.”

Kansas' legislature passed legislation that will prohibit general health insurance plans in the state of Kansas from covering "termination of pregnancy." Per the legislation, abortions can only be covered by insurance in the case of an emergency where the life of the mother is at risk. I am not sure yet if Governor Brownback (R) will sign the bill or not.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Dubuque County Right to Life is participating in a contest to win an office makeover valued at $15,000. DCRTL is a non-partisan, non-sectarian voice for life in Iowa, where telemed abortion poses a major threat to unborn children. From DCRTL's email:

This is a great opportunity for us, as you know firsthand the time it takes to raise this amount of money. This makeover would allow us to be more efficient in providing services for those who need it most. And, typically, money raised tends to support our mission, rather than update our office equipment. How can you help? For once, not by donating money, but by voting!

Next, I'd like to draw your attention to the Classy Awards, which recognize non-profit organizations and volunteers; the winners are selected by online voting. The organizers of the Classy Awards, who have narrowed the entries down to 25 per category, are apparently not pro-life; in fact, the head of a state pro-abortion group is in the running for Young Nonprofit Leader of the Year. However, there are also a number of candidates that, while not explicitly being about abortion, clearly reflect pro-life values. I would like to see the pro-life community rally around these candidates so that they win by a landslide!

The first is Catalina Rodriguez, who is a candidate for Most Influential College Student or College Organization. When Catalina was a teenager, she became pregnant with a son who had cerebral palsy. A fetus with a genetic disability and a young mother is practically the poster child for abortion, and I can only imagine the societal pressure that Catalina must have been under to end his life. She resisted, and her precious little boy, Isaac, was born in 2009. Tragically, he died 18 months later. She honors his memory by helping other families of people with cerebral palsy; she has logged hundreds of volunteer hours and raised thousands of dollars for the cause.

Thanks to Catalina’s hard work and willingness to share her story, countless people learned about little Isaac, as well as cerebral palsy. Catalina was featured in her hometown newspaper, reaching 2,800 people with each article. Everyone who heard her story learned about the challenges parents face in raising children with developmental disabilities, but they also learned about the profound love that a parent has for a child with a developmental disability. They learned that Isaac was not “the child with cerebral palsy”; he had his own personality and a mother who loved him dearly.

To vote for Catalina, click here, open the "Most Influential College Student or Organization" menu, and click Vote (she's the fourth entry).

In the running for Most Innovative Use of Social Media by a Charity, we have Reece's Rainbow. Some of you may already be familiar with Reece's Rainbow, because pro-life actress Patricia Heaton is a vocal supporter (as is pro-life blogger Jill Stanek.) Reece's Rainbow is dedicated to finding adoptive families for orphaned children who Down Syndrome. To vote for Reece's Rainbow, click here, open the "Most Innovative Use of Social Media by a Charity" tab, and click Vote (seventh from the bottom).

While you're on the Classy Awards page, be sure to cast your votes in the other categories; there are too many worthy candidates to mention here.